Presentation on theme: "Global Policy to Protect Stratospheric Ozone 20th Anniversary in 2007 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer."— Presentation transcript:
Global Policy to Protect Stratospheric Ozone 20th Anniversary in 2007 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
Take away concepts Montreal Protocol in a nutshell: 1.Science shaped the debate 2.Public perception matters 3.Viable solutions from industry More detail: 1.Ozone Policy at the National Level 2.Ozone Policy at the International Level 3.Timeline of events, why was policy implemented so rapidly? 4.What were the relative roles of science and policy ? 5.National vs. international efforts and pre-emptive measures 6.What did it actually accomplish? What does the future look like? 7.Is this a viable model for global warming?
Global Ozone Policy 1.Very Important Issue - Ozone in stratosphere helps shield earth from UV radiation. 2.Very Difficult Problem to Solve - ozone-depleting substances (ODS) were considered essential to modern life and “impossible” to replace. –ODS include: CFCs, Halons, Methyl Bromide, HCFCs, MC, CTC, Bromochloromethane (BCM)
Global Ozone Policy 3. A Successful and Influential Example Global membership. Strong set of binding rules (international law). –1985 Vienna Convention –1987 Montreal Protocol –Amendments and Adjustments to the Protocol (1990 London Amendment, 1992 Copenhagen, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007).
The Road to Montreal in a nutshell 1.Central importance of science 2.Public Opinion: “The Dread Factor” 3.Industry involvement and viable alternatives Also - Existing Institutions / Regime / Policy Structure – accepted international fora for discussion and debate matters.
1. Advancing Scientific and Technical Knowledge/Information “Framed” the Debate - “Constrained” Actors Influenced Epistemic Community Development (Mindset) Formal/Acknowledged Role in Treaty - Basis for Treaty Expansion. The importance of “scientific consensus” The importance of timely discoveries Influences public opinion, but more importantly shapes the policy.
2. Public Opinion US public increasingly active with environmental issues (DDT, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, pollution, acid rain…) “Dread factor” - some issues have the ability to grip public imagination, mobilize to action (cancer) Public willing to sacrifice convenience for public good US action led the way to Montreal, both in public activism and diplomatic leadership. Much of Europe was reluctant until mid-1980s.
3. Economic Factors Industry initially slowed progress. “Traditional” Retarding Impact Once the path became evident, industry shaped the timeline and the terms of the protocol. Regulation Produced Innovation, new substitutes found to replace old CFCs. International regulation ‘re-cartelized’ ODS Production – allowed for rapid policy expansion Multilateral Fund ($2 billion over 15 years) helped developing countries comply with phase out of ozone- depleting substances (ODS) at an agreed schedule. Developed nations paid to help developing nations comply. Worked – economically and politically.
Policy Development: US to Global perspective 1.Ozone depletion as a domestic issue (1970s) Supersonic Transport study Molina and Rowland study Aerosol CFC ban 2.Ozone depletion as an international issue ( ) UNEP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer Discovery of the ozone hole (Farman et al. 1985) Vienna Convention for the protection of the Ozone Layer Montreal Protocol for the protection of the Ozone Layer 1990 onwards - Amendments and Adjustments to the Protocol (1990 London Amendment, 1992 Copenhagen, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007).
1. Domestic Policy (1970s) The Stage Economics: 1960s Federal subsidy of Supersonic transport to compete with French, UK, and Soviet efforts Science: Supersonic transport, vapor contrails, NOx, and ozone loss. Rising US public awareness of environmental issues Europeans not convinced SST was a problem, competition issues.
Domestic Policy (SSTs) Congress authorized study to investigate effects of a commercial SST fleet on stratospheric ozone. (Climate Impact Assessment Program). Study backed the SST-Ozone-UV link. Tone of final document was weak due to political meddling. SST program killed in 1971 for many reasons (economic viability, sonic boom), ozone protection wasn’t one of them! “The SST conflict was both a catalyst and harbinger of a new era” (Horwitch) Marked the beginning of a period in which technological development would increasingly be balanced against other societal goals.
Domestic Policy (emerging science) Molina and Rowland (1974) study. Beautiful science. An amazing achievement - laboratory study recreating chemical reactions in the stratosphere. Global implications Pointed attacks from industry
Domestic Policy (Spray can ban) 1978 CFC-propellant ban for aerosol spray cans. Issue emerged on the heels of the SST conflict, also rising environmental awareness of US public. Initiated as a consequence of CFC - UV - skin cancer research in mid-1970s. US led the way, Canada, Scandinavian also adopted. (But France and UK did not) 1970s VO5 Hairspray ad
1978 Spray can ban 1977 UNEP meeting 1987 Montreal Protocol1974 Molina & Rowland study1971 SST Domestic
2. Public Concern Late 1970s: UV radiation and cancer
Public Concern: Discovery of the Ozone Hole (1985) Farman et al (1985) study provided critical proof that ozone inventories were decreasing. Most surprising was the rate of decrease: 40% decreases then (up to 80% now) This, coupled with the UV- cancer studies alarmed the public. Pressure to act.
3. International policy 1970s - studies linking increased UV to cancer 1977 UNEP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer meeting 1979Margaret Thatcher Elected 1980Ronald Reagan Elected Discovery of the Ozone Hole 1985 Vienna Convention, not binding and no protocol for reducing CFC emissions. "Umbrella Treaty". –US, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Finland on one side (proposing 80% reduction, complete production ban); EEC countries on the other (30% cut, production cap) Negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna Convention for controlling CFCs resumed Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer achieved in a 9-month period. Production ban, phase-out, Multilateral fund. Subsequent amendments: 1990 and onward
Ozone Regime 1987 Montreal Protocol. –Centerpiece of the regime. –50% cuts on 5 CFCs and 3 Halons by –10-year grace party for developing countries (Article 5). –Assessment panels. –Amendment and adjustment procedures. –All countries have signed onto this as of 2009.
Ozone Regime 1990 London Amendment and Adjustments. 100% cut on 15 CFCs, Halons, CT, MC by 2000 from 1986 levels Copenhagen Amendment and Adjustments. 100% cut on 15 CFCs, Halons, CT, MC by 1996 from 1986 levels. HCFCs and Methyl Bromide added.
Ozone Regime 1995Vienna Amendment and Adjustments. HCFCs consumption controls increased. Grace period – informally adjusted/expanded for developing countries. 1997Montreal Amendment and Adjustments. Methyl Bromide to be phased out by 2005 – with loophole retained Beijing Amendment and Adjustments. HCFC production controls; restrictions on HCFC trade with non-Parties; production and consumption controls for new group of substances, Bromochloromethane (BCM) Only 155/254 countries have signed on
Multilateral Fund Helped developing countries phase out ODS Follows UN principle that “countries have a common but differentiated responsibility to protect and manage the global commons” Pledges from developed nations were $2.1 billion ( ).
International Institutions and Extant Regime / Policy Structure Financial Mechanism - Multilateral Fund (hugely imp political deal; membership carrot; economic interests; adjustment costs). Trade Sanctions (membership stick) Non-Compliance Procedures UNEP as designated regime organization
International Institutions and Extant Regime / Policy Structure Int. Institutions provided foundation, basis & opportunity to initiate, sustain and build policy. Control Measures - Clear, Strong, Simple, Binding, Total Phase-Out Goal, Differentiated Responsibilities Ability to grow in response to new information –Requirement to consider action; –Information to base decision (Assessment Panels); –Ability to make decisions; –Rapid implementation of decisions possible (Amendment and Adjustments, Decisions of Parties, MF)
1978 Spray can ban 1977 UNEP meeting 1987 Montreal Protocol1974 Molina & Rowland study1971 SST 1985 Ozone Hole discovered 1985 Vienna Convention DomesticInt’l
Ozone Hole in Dobson Units Negotiation Period
Successful Example – So Far Robust Set of Component Institutions –Regime Principles, Norms, Rules, & Procedures –Multilateral Fund –Assessment Panels (Science; Environmental Effects; Technology and Economic Assessment) –Non-compliance procedures (Implementation Committee) –Implementing Agencies (UNEP, World Bank, UNDP, UNIDO) Elements incorporated into future treaties (and intentionally not-incorporated)
Successful Example – So Far Effective International Policy –Production and consumption of almost all ODS (CFCs, etc.) declining on global scale. –Atmospheric concentrations of most ODS stabilized or dropping. –Stratospheric concentrations of Cl and Br dropping. –Production and Consumption of CFCs and several other ODS nearly eliminated in OECD countries, as required. –Developing countries largely met CFC freeze in 2000 and meeting or expected to reductions. –Positive Impact on Climate Change (CFCs about 1000 times GWP as CO2; Ozone Regime responsible for eliminating equivalent of about years of CO2 emissions). –Flexible language (no new treaty for each compound)
Since 1999 Efforts to increase controls MB (USA opposition at times). Efforts to speed controls on HCFCs. Enhances focus on FTA in particular areas to ensure full compliance by developing countries.
Ozone Regime 2007 Montreal Adjustment: 191 Parties to the Montreal Protocol reached a historic agreement, September 21, 2007 to strengthen the ozone treaty by speeding up by ten years the phase-out of HCFCs. The agreement will advance the recovery of the ozone layer by several years and, because HCFCs are GHGs, reduce GHG emissions by up to 25 billion tons of CO2 equivalent—five times more than the Kyoto Protocol will do during its initial reduction period from 2008 to As part of the agreement, developed country Parties promised to continue paying into Multilateral Fund. Multilateral fund (~$2.2 billion contributed) to assist developing world with phase-out.
2007 Montreal Adjustment: Developed Country Parties: Baseline: 1989 levels (plus 2.8% of 1989 CFC levels). 75% reduction on 1 Jan 2010 (up from 65%) 90% on 1 Jan 2015 Continuing use of 0.5% from 2020 to 2030 Developing Country Parties: (old schedule – 2016 freeze at 2015 level and 100% cut in 2040) Base level average (incentive?) Freeze on 1 Jan % reduction on 1 Jan % on 1 Jan % on 1 Jan 2025 Continuing use of 2.5% from 2030 to 2040
Future Success? New Scientific Challenges –New ODS? –Relation to climate change. –CFCs and HCFCs in developing countries – will complete phase-outs really occur. –Methyl bromide – exemptions. –Ozone levels will slowly recover over next few decades.
We are here
Full recovery takes a long time (50 years)
Montreal Protocol as a model for GHG Similarities Science frames the debate Global problem Public concern Existing regime framework Multiple hazards Industry resistance to change Differences Disconnect between science and policy. Uncertain future projections. Climate responses to GHG have longer timescales. No equivalent “Dread Factor” No viable energy substitute Incomplete international participation Kyoto vs. Montreal regime frameworks No accepted plan for developing world No equivalent to Farman et al paper - observation of catastrophic change. CO 2 problem is much bigger in every way: Impacts, mitigation.
Lessons Learned 1.Scientists have a critical role in shaping negotiations. 2.Policy can advance even with scientific ambiguities. 3.Well-informed public is a key ally for progress. 4.Progress: Industry + government + science. 5.Strong leadership by a few countries. From Richard Benedick (2007), Science, Diplomacy, and the Montreal Protocol.
Timeline of important events leading up to Montreal Protocol
Tactics of the Ozone Hole Skeptics (1970s - 90s) 1.Launch a public relations campaign. 2.Predict dire economic consequences. 3.Find and pay a respected scientist to argue your point. 4.Elevate discredited scientific studies. 5.Emphasize scientific uncertainty. 6.“Cherry-pick” data to support your view. 7.Disparage and impugn specific scientists. 8.Compliance puts the nation at an economic disadvantage. 9.More research is needed before action should be taken. 10.Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects. A great link to Jeffrey Masters’ article on thislink